So what did the Brexit supporters gain?

[sandyf]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

You can't have lived here long enough, as I remember that v well.  It coincided with the period of time when I was short of money.

 

edit - and reliant on pension income from the UK....

Never mind the long enough BS. Specify this period 7 or 8 years ago when it dropped below 45 for some time.

 

It was 59 when I came in 99 and went up into the 70's from there, not until 2013 did it drop below the 45 mark.

[Khun Han]

8 hours ago, sandyf said:

Never mind the long enough BS. Specify this period 7 or 8 years ago when it dropped below 45 for some time.

 

It was 59 when I came in 99 and went up into the 70's from there, not until 2013 did it drop below the 45 mark.

 

sandyf is right. The year I was thinking of was 2010, when Sterling spent most of the year in the mid-to-high-forties (with a lower average than the last twelve months):

 

http://gbp.fx-exchange.com/thb/exchange-rates-history.html

 

I remember changing some notes at a booth one time that year and getting about 43,  but obviously that wasn't the inter-bank rate.

 

But the argument doesn't change: Sterling was doing worse over a sustained period of time then than it is now, and it went up again.

[Khun Han]

The UK economy is tanking because of brexit (not):

 

http://uk.businessinsider.com/uk-retail-sales-for-july-2016-8?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=referral

[GuestHouse]

44 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

sandyf is right. The year I was thinking of was 2010, when Sterling spent most of the year in the mid-to-high-forties (with a lower average than the last twelve months):

 

http://gbp.fx-exchange.com/thb/exchange-rates-history.html

 

I remember changing some notes at a booth one time that year and getting about 43,  but obviously that wasn't the inter-bank rate.

 

But the argument doesn't change: Sterling was doing worse over a sustained period of time then than it is now, and it went up again.

 

Your argument is not supported by the evidence that you have presented. The link provides graphs with averages over the time scales for each graph (with the exception of the 10 day graphs). There is no sustained period of sustained low exchange rate in the data presented via your link that could be described as even comparable to the current low exchange rate. 

[Ricardo]

From that link about retail-sales  ...

 

" While retail sales grew strongly in the month, it should be noted that consumer spending is always a volatile measure of activity, and can oscillate wildly from month-to-month, meaning that July's data may not yet reflect any impact on shoppers by the Brexit vote. "

 

Of course one might argue, that the increase in retail-sales might represent consumers rushing to buy their new TV/fridge/computer before the impact of the weaker-Pound increases prices ?

 

I think we'll see conflicting evidence either way, and that it will all be watched closely, not least by the Bank of England, over the next few months.

[sandyf]

4 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

sandyf is right. The year I was thinking of was 2010, when Sterling spent most of the year in the mid-to-high-forties (with a lower average than the last twelve months):

 

http://gbp.fx-exchange.com/thb/exchange-rates-history.html

 

I remember changing some notes at a booth one time that year and getting about 43,  but obviously that wasn't the inter-bank rate.

 

But the argument doesn't change: Sterling was doing worse over a sustained period of time then than it is now, and it went up again.

I appreciate the comment, not many are prepared to stand up and be counted.

 

The argument can be slanted any way you want but some speculation there may be some recovery in the distant future is of little comfort to those with a seat in Gods waiting room.

 

Edited August 20, 2016 by sandyf

[Khun Han]

11 hours ago, GuestHouse said:

 

Your argument is not supported by the evidence that you have presented. The link provides graphs with averages over the time scales for each graph (with the exception of the 10 day graphs). There is no sustained period of sustained low exchange rate in the data presented via your link that could be described as even comparable to the current low exchange rate. 

 

There is nothing wrong with my interpretation of the historical evidence that I provided: Sterling started the year steadily in the low fifties and spent most of the rest of the year in the mid-to-high forties, performing worse over the course of that year than it has in the last twelve months.

 

Germany can hope. But enough Brits to make a difference got wise to the ruse .

11 hours ago, GuestHouse said:

 

[emilymat]

I expect a way will  be found (next year) for Brexit (In full) to be discarded. Whether it is via a Parliamentary vote, (a legal case is now going on), a super duper deal with the EU that would trigger a second referendum or something else. In my view, that is why Teresa May has made it clear that article 50 will not be triggered until at least 2017.

 

I returned to the UK to vote remain, but, apart from the hit on income  - due to devaluation - I have to accept the outcome. My daughter voted Brexit because she didn't like George Osborne. (I couldn't stand the man, but could  not allow that to influence me).

 

There is no doubt the government welcome the fall in the value of the pound and, in reality, your ordinary Joe in t he UK isnot going to notice much - except maybe a tenner on the price of a flat screen TV.

 

I've read a lot of posts  on this thread about the baht/pound. All I know is that in 1989 (my first visit) it was about 40 and I've known it rise to 90 around 1997. All I ask, and probably many in Thailand, is for some form of stability. I think we now have it - the mid 40's.

 

If my theory takes place, and Brexit in full does not happen, then it may well rise again to the giddy heights of 50.

[AlexRich]

1 hour ago, emilymat said:

I expect a way will  be found (next year) for Brexit (In full) to be discarded. Whether it is via a Parliamentary vote, (a legal case is now going on), a super duper deal with the EU that would trigger a second referendum or something else. In my view, that is why Teresa May has made it clear that article 50 will not be triggered until at least 2017.

 

I returned to the UK to vote remain, but, apart from the hit on income  - due to devaluation - I have to accept the outcome. My daughter voted Brexit because she didn't like George Osborne. (I couldn't stand the man, but could  not allow that to influence me).

 

There is no doubt the government welcome the fall in the value of the pound and, in reality, your ordinary Joe in t he UK isnot going to notice much - except maybe a tenner on the price of a flat screen TV.

 

I've read a lot of posts  on this thread about the baht/pound. All I know is that in 1989 (my first visit) it was about 40 and I've known it rise to 90 around 1997. All I ask, and probably many in Thailand, is for some form of stability. I think we now have it - the mid 40's.

 

If my theory takes place, and Brexit in full does not happen, then it may well rise again to the giddy heights of 50.

 

I think the £ will recover eventually, as it has been down at these levels vis a vis the $ and € before. Not in 2017, though as everything is relative not impossible either.

 

We now have Ian Duncan Smith urging the PM to trigger Article 50, he mentioned something about the electorate sending a message to the "elites" ...  given that there were "elites" campaigning on both sides of the question he's at least consistent in his stupidity and his inability to recognise that he is one of them. 

 

In October there is an Italian referendum that could well go against the reigning PM, that might shake things up more in the EU ... I think that the Daily Mail backed May and trashed the competition because they got a promise on exiting the EU. Although I think leaving is is a dumb move, something would have to give on free movement to keep the UK inside.

[user343434]

Hi all,

 

I am actually German but working since over 20 years offshore and almost all my colleagues are Brits.

Most have been working over years in German Projects and so made a living within Europe.  Sure they were contra brexits and have now in mind what happens when all Europe collapses and you need working visas again. 

 

On the questions what did the EU good to me as a German my answers came instandly:

1st.. I wouldn't mind showing my Passport again at the borders within Europe

2nd: The EU made me leaving from Germany to Thailand 12 years ago. And that was the best move I ever did. LOL

[AlexRich]

13 minutes ago, See Will said:

Hi all,

 

I am actually German but working since over 20 years offshore and almost all my colleagues are Brits.

Most have been working over years in German Projects and so made a living within Europe.  Sure they were contra brexits and have now in mind what happens when all Europe collapses and you need working visas again. 

 

On the questions what did the EU good to me as a German my answers came instandly:

1st.. I wouldn't mind showing my Passport again at the borders within Europe

2nd: The EU made me leaving from Germany to Thailand 12 years ago. And that was the best move I ever did. LOL

 

I think Germany was one of the winners from the EU, particularly with regard to the Euro. If the Deutschemark still existed it would be much stronger than the Euro, so given Germany's massive export business it has helped having a weaker currency. You've lost in terms of open door policy ... immigration and refugee intake is very high.

[autanic]

On August 20, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Ronuk said:

The Baht looks as though it could of found it's level at around 45 to the pound.

 

 

I would agree with this completely. Whereas I would like the Pound to be strong against the baht because I can have more money when I visit Thailand, realistically 45 sounds about the right level.

 

[sandyf]

21 minutes ago, autanic said:

 

 

I would agree with this completely. Whereas I would like the Pound to be strong against the baht because I can have more money when I visit Thailand, realistically 45 sounds about the right level.

 

I take it you missed post no 836. The pound to the baht is based on the pound to the dollar. The pound is one of the world reserve currencies and when the markets lose confidence in a reserve currency the money goes somewhere else.

When you say "45 sounds about right" , you really mean the pound should be around 1.3 dollars.

[mfd101]

9 hours ago, sandyf said:

I take it you missed post no 836. The pound to the baht is based on the pound to the dollar. The pound is one of the world reserve currencies and when the markets lose confidence in a reserve currency the money goes somewhere else.

When you say "45 sounds about right" , you really mean the pound should be around 1.3 dollars.

Yes, and there is no 'right' level. There's merely what the markets are paying at the moment, which may or may not be the same tomorrow or the next day or at any time in the future ...

[Ricardo]

13 hours ago, AlexRich said:

 

I think Germany was one of the winners from the EU, particularly with regard to the Euro. If the Deutschemark still existed it would be much stronger than the Euro, so given Germany's massive export business it has helped having a weaker currency. You've lost in terms of open door policy ... immigration and refugee intake is very high.

 

I think German workers do appreciate, that in return for a weaker currency than they'd otherwise have plus booming exports, the price they have to pay is more subsidies to, and immigration from, other EU-countries. I've heard this many times from German friends.

[yogi100]

Most Brexiteers were under the impression that we'd be masters of our own destiny and be making our own laws paricularly when it comes to immigration because that's the main reason 17.5 million people went to the polling station that day.

 

They were also under the impression that the UK is a democracy and that politicians are elected to implement the will of the people. We'll soon see how democratic the UK actually is if and when the government gets round to regaining our sovereignty, putting British people first in their own country and deciding whose laws we live by.

 

Unless Farage is back on the scene to use his undoubted charisma and ability then any changes we see will take years to come about. His presence is needed to monitor the transformation and see that the government does not try and hoodwink the British public like it usually does.

[AlexRich]

47 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

Most Brexiteers were under the impression that we'd be masters of our own destiny and be making our own laws paricularly when it comes to immigration because that's the main reason 17.5 million people went to the polling station that day.

 

They were also under the impression that the UK is a democracy and that politicians are elected to implement the will of the people. We'll soon see how democratic the UK actually is if and when the government gets round to regaining our sovereignty, putting British people first in their own country and deciding whose laws we live by.

 

Unless Farage is back on the scene to use his undoubted charisma and ability then any changes we see will take years to come about. His presence is needed to monitor the transformation and see that the government does not try and hoodwink the British public like it usually does.

 

If you really are concerned with sovereignty you might want to prioritise having a head of state, currently the Queen, who is elected by the people and a second chamber, currently the Lords, that is also elected by the people. Separating from the EU is hardly full 'sovereignty'. I wonder of Farage will now campaign to have the Queen replaced by a Republic and abolish the House of Lords?  

[billd766]

3 hours ago, AlexRich said:

 

If you really are concerned with sovereignty you might want to prioritise having a head of state, currently the Queen, who is elected by the people and a second chamber, currently the Lords, that is also elected by the people. Separating from the EU is hardly full 'sovereignty'. I wonder of Farage will now campaign to have the Queen replaced by a Republic and abolish the House of Lords?  

 

If you knew what you were talking about people might believe you.

 

The sovereign of the the UK, currently Queen Elizabeth ll is in a hereditary position and is NOT elected by the people of the UK.

 

The second chamber, called the House of Lords is populated by some hereditary peers and many more life peers, selected by outgoing Prime Ministers and once again NOT elected by the people.

 

Would you like to research that and try your post again?

[vogie]

On 18 August 2016 at 11:22 AM, cumgranosalum said:

The general philosophy of Brexiteers - it you can call it that - brings to mind the owner of a car who finds it needs repairing and rather than fixing it decides the best solution is to smash it up and buy a bicycle

 

You're correct, in the long run the bicycle will do you more good, great analogy by the way.

[AlexRich]

19 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

If you knew what you were talking about people might believe you.

 

The sovereign of the the UK, currently Queen Elizabeth ll is in a hereditary position and is NOT elected by the people of the UK.

 

The second chamber, called the House of Lords is populated by some hereditary peers and many more life peers, selected by outgoing Prime Ministers and once again NOT elected by the people.

 

Would you like to research that and try your post again?

 

I think you need to read it again ... "you might want to prioritise having ... a head of state ... the Lords ... that is elected by the people" In other words, the current incumbents are not. Tricky, I'll give you that, but it meant the opposite of what you believe it to mean. I was explaining that the head of state is currently the Queen, and the Lords is currently the second chamber. 

 

Do you really believe that there is someone out there who thinks the Queen was elected?

[ljd1308]

19 hours ago, AlexRich said:

 

I think Germany was one of the winners from the EU, particularly with regard to the Euro. If the Deutschemark still existed it would be much stronger than the Euro, so given Germany's massive export business it has helped having a weaker currency. You've lost in terms of open door policy ... immigration and refugee intake is very high.

The Germans won the world cup on the back of their immigration policy.

[yogi100]

1 hour ago, AlexRich said:

 

I think you need to read it again ... "you might want to prioritise having ... a head of state ... the Lords ... that is elected by the people" In other words, the current incumbents are not. Tricky, I'll give you that, but it meant the opposite of what you believe it to mean. I was explaining that the head of state is currently the Queen, and the Lords is currently the second chamber.

 

Do you really believe that there is someone out there who thinks the Queen was elected?

 

You just claimed that she was, here are your words.....

 

"If you really are concerned with sovereignty you might want to prioritise having a head of state, currently the Queen, who is elected by the people and a second chamber, currently the Lords, that is also elected by the people."

 

It's quite an understandable mistake, some Americans have some very strange ideas about the Royal Family and the British aristocracy and one that I once met even thought that all Englishmen lived in castles.

Edited August 22, 2016 by yogi100

[ljd1308]

Just now, yogi100 said:

 

You just claimed that she was, here are your words.....

 

"If you really are concerned with sovereignty you might want to prioritise having a head of state, currently the Queen, who is elected by the people and a second chamber, currently the Lords, that is also elected by the people."

 

It's quite an understandable mistake, some Americans have some very strange ideas about the Royal Family and the British aristocracy and one that I once met even thought that all Englishmen lived in castles.

Mate, you're digging yourself a bigger hole....

 

Even the bit you quoted quite clearly says the exact same thing you did. The key word in understanding what was said is "If" at the beginning of the post...."If you are concerned.....etc"

 

 

[yogi100]

5 minutes ago, ljd1308 said:

Mate, you're digging yourself a bigger hole....

 

Even the bit you quoted quite clearly says the exact same thing you did. The key word in understanding what was said is "If" at the beginning of the post...."If you are concerned.....etc"

 

 

 

Sovereignty in the context of the referendum refers to independence and self governance rather than whether or not we have a monarch.

[sandyf]

9 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

 

You just claimed that she was, here are your words.....

 

"If you really are concerned with sovereignty you might want to prioritise having a head of state, currently the Queen, who is elected by the people and a second chamber, currently the Lords, that is also elected by the people."

 

It's quite an understandable mistake, some Americans have some very strange ideas about the Royal Family and the British aristocracy and one that I once met even thought that all Englishmen lived in castles.

You should brush up on your English, the text between the commas is outside the context of the statement.

"If you really are concerned with sovereignty you might want to prioritise having a head of state(, currently the Queen,) who is elected by the people and a second chamber(, currently the Lords,) that is also elected by the people."

 

Should be read as

 

"If you really are concerned with sovereignty you might want to prioritise having a head of state who is elected by the people and a second chamber that is also elected by the people."

[ljd1308]

2 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

 

Sovereignty in the context of the referendum refers to independence and self governance rather than whether or not we have a monarch.

That may well be the case, but that is not what you were saying.

 

I was just pointing out that you didn't understand simple written English and trying to help you with that.

Edited August 22, 2016 by ljd1308
Posted on wrong page

[yogi100]

3 minutes ago, ljd1308 said:

That may well be the case, but that is not what you were saying.

 

You were misunderstanding something someone wrote and then criticizing their English skills.....a little bit ironic

 

I don't believe I did criticise anyone's English skills. If I did I apologise.

 

It was actually sandyf who criticised mine with the words, "You should brush up on your English"

 

The word 'sovereignty' means the independent right and ability of a national parliament to rule and make its own political and civic decisions about any matters that concern a nation and its people without outside interference.

The word 'Sovereign' means king or queen. There is also a collectable gold coin known as a 'Sovereign'.

 

I used the word 'sovereignty'. I did not mention anything about a Sovereign.

Although both words are similar they actually  have different meanings down to the letters 'ty' at the end of the former. This may have been what caused the confusion.

[ljd1308]

9 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

 

I don't believe I did criticise anyone's English skills. If I did I apologise.

 

It was actually sandyf who criticised mine with the words, "You should brush up on your English"

 

The word 'sovereignty' means the independent right and ability of a national parliament to rule and make its own political and civic decisions about any matters that concern a nation and its people without outside interference.

The word 'Sovereign' means king or queen. There is also a collectable gold coin known as a 'Sovereign'.

 

I used the word 'sovereignty'. I did not mention anything about a Sovereign.

Although both words are similar they actually  have different meanings down to the letters 'ty' at the end of the former. This may have been what caused the confusion.

Yeah, u are right about the English bit....I got distracted as I posted that and didn't realise till after when I edited it.

 

Sorry.

 

All i was saying was that you both said the same thing about her not being elected.

[AlexRich]

1 hour ago, ljd1308 said:

The Germans won the world cup on the back of their immigration policy.

 

As did we with our Olympic medal haul. What Syrian born player was in that German team?

[AlexRich]

1 hour ago, yogi100 said:

 

You just claimed that she was, here are your words.....

 

"If you really are concerned with sovereignty you might want to prioritise having a head of state, currently the Queen, who is elected by the people and a second chamber, currently the Lords, that is also elected by the people."

 

It's quite an understandable mistake, some Americans have some very strange ideas about the Royal Family and the British aristocracy and one that I once met even thought that all Englishmen lived in castles.

 

Keep digging ... "you might want to prioritise having" ... "who is elected by the people" ... not the easiest sentence I'll grant you, but the meaning is clear ... the comma enclosed section explaining who the head of state and second chamber are.

 

God ... this is tiresome. And what makes you think that I am American?